THE ORIGIN OF SHIVA SUTRAS

In the valley of Kashmir from 860-925 AD, lived Vasugupta. He was recognized as an enlightened master, and a man who possessed superior knowledge and wisdom.

Fully God-realized, he was filled with a tremendous purity of heart and was intensely devoted to the Lord Shiva, the Supreme Maheshvara. One night Lord Shiva infused a dream into Vasugupta’s consciousness for the purpose of restoring those secret teachings that
had been lost to the world even in Vasugupta’s time. The dream revealed the existence of a large special rock at the foot of Mahadeva Mountain.

Shiva told Vasugupta to go that rock and lift it, for underneath a great esoteric teaching would be found inscribed into it.
Vasugupta awoke and set off to search for this sacred rock. Upon finding the rock nestled on the side of a small stream, he touched it and the mere touch of his hand caused the huge rock to at once turn over - and written on it there underneath were the Shiva Sutras.
He was filled with wonder and joy. He began to study these sutras and over time absorbed them and shared them with his best students, always remembering that in the dream Shiva had cautioned him to reveal them only to those who are fit for grace. So it was then, so it is now.
That big rock is still known as 'samkaropala'.

To read more visit : https://t.co/GMI9szK613
@SriramKannan77 @Sumita327 @DograTishaa @BahuRaani @DrAmbardar @narayanagl @AparBharat @LearningShakta @TheGohan98 @HarishK04131926 @HiteshAwasthi89 @_ankahi @Saumya_miishra @Samrasta20 @varshaparmar6 @Nidhi7007 @0801Himani @DharmaSuta

More from WORLD OF SANATAN DHARMA

More from All

You May Also Like

This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".


The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.


Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)


There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.


At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?